Jump to content

Talk:Rape of Belgium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandJ-on-WP (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 31 August 2022 (→See also section: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Title of article

This page was originally created at the title "Rape of Belgium". It was moved to "The Rape of Belgium", but I have returned the article to "Rape of Belgium" because Wikipedia policy, as stated at the beginning of WP:THE, is to avoid the initial definite article unless one of two conditions are met.

The first condition is "If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article", with the example "crown means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while The Crown is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy." Since Belgium is not an individual but a country, both "Rape of Belgium" and "the Rape of Belgium" unambiguously refer to the "German treatment of civilians during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Belgium during World War I", so that condition is not met.

The second condition is "if the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text". Well, that is not the case, either. The historical sources that describe this event do not do so. For example, in Rust: The Longest War by Jonathan Waldman: "[...] and then had it stolen while he was taken prisoner by Germans during the Rape of Belgium" [1]. Or in Women and Ideology of War Recruitment, Propaganda, and the Mobilization of Public Opinion in Britain: 1914 - 1918 by Nicoletta F. Gullace: "The key to the profound popular and international effect of the Rape of Belgium [...]" or "in the move from the text of the Hague Convention to the bodies of innocent women and children, the Rape of Belgium became a physical symbol" [2]. Or in Excluded from the Record: Women, Refugees, and Relief, 1914-1929 by Katherine Storr: "The occupation was consequently described as the rape of Belgium" [3]. Or in German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial by John Horne and Alan Kramer: "Tales of raped women in Belgium and France merged into the rape of Belgium itself and suggested the threat to Britain" [4].

Finally, compare the many other events in the template Template:World War I, of which this article is an entry. We have events like like "Battle of the Frontiers", "Battle of Cer", "Race to the Sea", "Armistice of Mudros", "Destruction of Kalisz", etc., none of which use the definite article at the beginning. Finally, compare to other articles about war crimes: "Massacre of Avranches", "Massacre of Benares", "Massacre of Mérindol", "Massacre of Trujillo", etc.

—Lowellian (reply) 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth largest economy?

Can we have a source link for this "Before the war Belgium was the sixth largest economy in the world"? I could find a proof, looks it's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleck$ (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some links:

SandJ-on-WP (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 11-13th -- absolutely, but not 6th. The link from a nationmastder.com says 4th out of 39 countries, the data is very incomplete, even it's GDP per capita. I'd say 6th economy in Europe - easily, but not in the world. Aleck$ (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly add a section on how the Rape of Belgium's legacy carried into WWII?

I was wondering if it would be desirable to add a new section on how the Rape of Belgium was portrayed in Entente media sources during WWI affected how people viewed the very real atrocities the Germans and their collaborators were committing in Eastern Europe during WWII. Part of the reason people had trouble believing the mass murder of Jews and the death factories operating in Poland was because such stories sounded familiar to alleged German war atrocities during the initial invasion of Belgium (many of which, as this article notes, turned out to be true). Concchambers (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people in the allied countries did have trouble accepting the atrocities of the Nazis because knowledge had been coming out since the 1930s of things getting worse and worse. The ones who had trouble accepting it was true were the Germans and, relatively more recently, holocaust deniers. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality?

The opening says:

"The Rape of Belgium was the German mistreatment of civilians during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Belgium during World War I. The term initially had a propaganda use but recent historiography confirms its reality."

Now Belgium is a country/nation, not a woman, so the term is used as a metaphor and it is not really possible "in reality" to rape such an entity. I was thinking we could reword it a bit. Perhaps:

"The Rape of Belgium refers to the German mistreatment of civilians during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Belgium during World War I. Although the term originally had a propaganda use, recent historiography has confirmed a significant number of atrocities were committed by the German Army."

What do people think? Leutha (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No change is needed. the suggestion is based on a false assumption. It is NOT true that rape is a metaphor. Webster's 3rd Unabridged Dictionary is a standard source and its complete definition makes this clear: 1 : the act or an instance of robbing or despoiling : violent seizure *the rape of the city by the invading soldiers* *the rape of the region's forests*; 2 : the act of carrying away a person by force *the rape of the Sabine women*; 3 a : illicit sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman and effected by force, duress, intimidation, or deception as to the nature of the act — see STATUTORY RAPE b : sexual aggression other than by a man toward a woman; 4 : an outrageous violation (as of a fundamental principle or institution) *trials that have been criticized as a rape of justice— Hal Foust* *a judicial rape of the Constitution— H.E.Talmadge* Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To rape means 'to seize'. The meaning of forced sexual assault (which can be committed on men and women) is just one of the meanings. For example, it is legitimate to talk of the mineral extraction industry raping the planet for its resources. The Rape of Belgium is called that because it is not about sexual assault on women or using it as a metaphor. The Germans stripped the factories of their machinery, took all the mineral resources, transported the men to work as slave labourers in their factories, destroyed the remaining means of production and generally completely trashed the country. They also mistreated the civilian population. It was Belgium as an entire country - its wealth, its means of production, its savings, its people - that was raped. They even claimed its existence suggesting it becomes part of Germany in their peace proposals. The title is correct. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Leutha (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When one paper confirms the other, than people tend to believe it. It's the same with propaganda. Build up bias muddies the waters. 105.4.1.131 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I prefer your proposed phrasing Leutha.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality redux

The article stated in its former version : The term initially had a propaganda use but recent historiography confirms its reality.[1] One modern author uses it more narrowly to describe a series of German war crimes in the opening months of the war (August–September 1914).[2]

Neither, the sources are quoted (nor do they look particularly impressive) nor is there any evidence of a consensus among historians.

However, I would like the lead as well as the article to expand on the invasion of Belgium being a war crime itself. Belgium has been neutral, and the motive for the invasion was "strategic" - to widen the field of operations (from a Prussian/German point of view) towards France. Of course, this does not allow an invasion. -- Zz (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

numerous historians are cited by Hull, Horne-Kramer, & Lipkes. Others can be added such as Larry Zuckerman - 2004; Wieland (1984 in German); The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War ed by H Strachan - 2014; N.F. Gullace - History Compass, 2011; Sophie de Schaepdrijver 1999. I have not seen a single rs in the last decade who rejects the consensus that widespread systematic atrocities were deliberately inflicted. Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ It was described as such in the following books:
    • John Horne (2010). A Companion to World War I. John Wiley and Sons. p. 265. ISBN 978-1-4051-2386-0.
    • Susan R. Grayzel (2002). Women and the First World War. Longman. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-582-41876-9.
    • Nicoletta Gullace (2002). The blood of our sons: men, women, and the renegotiation of British citizenship during the Great War. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-312-29446-5.
    • Kimberly Jensen (2008). Mobilizing Minerva: American women in the First World War. University of Illinois Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-252-07496-7.
    • Thomas F. Schneider (2007). "Huns" vs. "Corned beef": representations of the other in American and German literature and film on World War I. V&R unipress GmbH. p. 32. ISBN 978-3-89971-385-5.
    • Annette F. Timm; Joshua A. Sanborn (2007). Gender, sex and the shaping of modern Europe: a history from the French Revolution to the present day. Berg. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-84520-357-3.
    • Joseph R. Conlin (2008). The American Past. Cengage Learning. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-495-56622-9.
  2. ^ Zuckerman, Larry (2004). The Rape of Belgium: The Untold Story of World War I. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-9704-4.

(some) historical revision?

there is a new book by a US-based German (art) historian Ulrich Keller, which has made some waves in Germany. (I don't think it has been translated to English yet.) https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0765D3WFT He basically looked at thousands of records/testimony from the German Military Archive (MA) and French/Belgian newspaper articles. Bottom line: unrest and defensive fire by the Belgian civil population was nearly ubiquitos, at least in the Wallonian (francophil) part of the country. The German reaction, in his opinion, was harsh, but justified. According to the military records the German army suffered some 2500 casualties by the Francs-tireurs. Reactions by the historian community have been mixed, but not entirely hostile. There has even been a symposium organized by the University Potsdam; the summary is available in English: http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/index.asp?id=7409&view=pdf&pn=tagungsberichte&type=tagungsberichte It will probably need some time to "sink in" but in the end, I believe, we will see some revision of the "conventional wisdom". And indeed: it never quite made sense why an - otherwise highly organized and disciplined - German army should tie itself down in civil warfare in Belgium while under the time pressure of the Schlieffen plan to confront the French army ... Felixkrull (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So 'rape of Belgium' is merely a propaganda title given to something that was essentially something different?105.4.0.75 (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the comment above is about the early stage of the invasion of Belgium when a number of Belgian civilians fired on the invading Germans and the response from the Germans was very heavy-handed. The argument goes that the invading Germans were entitled to treat the civilians defending their country as military targets and also conduct reprisals, and so the disproportionate killing of civilians during the invasion was justified. (That does require accepting a military invasion is legitimate.) The Rape of Belgium, however, was the whole process of widespread stripping the country of assets and manpower. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar action by the Allies towards Greece

It should be noted that British and French forces illegally occupied the Greek port of Salonika on October 5, 1915, later ousting the rightful Greek government and replacing it with a puppet government under Mr. Venizelos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_of_Greece#World_War_I_and_the_National_Schism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:F713:5900:600F:D013:B381:793E (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without a reliable source making a connection between these events, the analogy above constitutes original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

The See also section currently contains: Belgian Congo, Freikorps in the Baltic, Herero and Namaqua Genocide, Leipzig War Crimes Trials and Belgisch Dagblad. Only the Leipzig trials appear to have any relevance whatsoever to this topic. Can we remove the irrelevant, and add meaningful links? Prime Lemur (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now it contains only "Herero and Namaqua Genocide" (approx. 100 000 killed persons), but no more the atrocities of the Belgians in Congo (approx. 8-10 Million killed persons !). So may I ask, why is the Herero genocide linked to this story and the Congo atrocities not ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

Lord Northcliffe would be proud of of this article, but for Wikipedia it's a shame ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:F712:D700:8C8B:934C:385A:E1D9 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be indeed some unwarranted bias in the article. Link one atrocity myth to another. That way assertions without factual base sound more credible. 105.4.0.75 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Rape of Belgium is not an atrocity myth. Nice try though. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic, obvious NPOV violation

This article is not about the "Rape of Belgium" - i.e. the Allied propaganda campaign. It is about the alleged atrocities that took place in Belgium during WWI. You cannot just conflate the two into one and the same; if you do, you are pretty much just a mouthpiece for whatever propaganda, on par with an article about the colonization of world being titled "The Great Game", and that sort of thing. It wasn't so great of a game for anyone who was the victim. The objective of Wikipedia is not to turn a state propaganda office and its jingoisms into a arbiter of truth. As for the content, one cannot even go one sentence into the article without running into flagrant pov-throwing. Consider: The Rape of Belgium was the brutal mistreatment of Belgian civilians by German troops - is there a source for this? Because this is again the language of the British war office, and I guess according to them and their publications, the Kaiser ate the world, hid in your house and bayonetted babies. A better opening lede might be "the term used in a propaganda campaign..." or something like that. If it were to instead take form as an article just about the atrocities during occupation, alleged or factually supported, then the article lede should take on a different form and so should the title of the article. Either way, change is necessary - in its current form, this article is a disaster. I'm also noting the abuse of German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg's quote in this same context, trimmed from "only for a word, neutrality, a word, that in the event of war already often was not thought of, only for a tiny piece of paper, would Great Britain move into war against a likeminded nation which wanted nothing more than to be friends" to The German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg dismissed the treaty of 1839 as a "scrap of paper". Asa3432 (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_of_Belgium&oldid=1107780307"